Tag Archives: Steve Emerson

Post navigation

Sunday’s Washington Post published an article entitled “When Is Freedom of Speech Irresponsible” in which writer David Cole omitted many facts, lied, and used Muslim Brotherhood talking points in an attempt to silence the very people and organizations whose facts and evidence detailing the jihadi threat to the United States and the West are unassailable.

Cole’s article references a new book by David K. Shipler, which is a blueprint of the coming assault on those who stand on truth to explain the growing jihadi network in America. Mr. Shipler was allowed to attend a UTT training program last year to help him understand the threat, yet his work leaves out so many facts that it is clear his intention was and is to deceive and manipulate readers to dismiss the imminent threat to our security from the Islamic Movement.

In fact, Mr. Cole states Shipler’s objective is not to suppress free speech “but simply to demonstrate that their (Guandolo, Gaffney, Emerson) claims are vastly exaggerated and unsubstantiated. In short, he answers their speech with his speech. An objective reader cannot help but come away with a better understanding of the truth. This is the freedom of speech at its best.”

Since what Mr. Shipler writes is objectively not true it means Mr. Cole is equating matching truths with lies and calling it a great debate. In reality, it is a facade and a deceit.

Specifically, in the Washington Post article states the focal point of everything UTT and other organizations say about the Muslim Brotherhood’s Jihadi Movement is based on one document – “An Explanatory Memorandum” – which is the strategy of the Muslim Brotherhood in North America.

Since John Guandolo has written a book on this topic entitled Raising a Jihadi Generation, and the fact he spends nine hours or so in his 3-day training program laying out the evidence of the threat, the claim that the entire understanding of the threat rests on one document is absurd.

Mr. Cole naively states “(Shipler) finds that the central document underlying most of the claims is a 15-page “explanatory memo” found in an FBI search of an Annandale, Va., home in 2004. Signed by Mohamed Akram, a member of the Palestine Committee of the Muslim Brotherhood…Shipler shows that in fact the document is nothing more than a thought piece drafted by a single individual in the early 1990s, and that there is no evidence it was ever considered, much less adopted, by the Muslim Brotherhood or anyone else. Shipler’s research shows that other supposed evidence of the grand Islamist conspiracy is similarly speculative.”

Mr. Cole fails to detail other significant evidence supporting “An Explanatory Memorandum” as a major underpinning of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Movement in North America, nor does he do any due diligence on the mountain of evidence which exists revealing the MB Movement and modus operandi here – which UTT teaches to law enforcement and national security professionals who acknowledge its relevance and factual/evidentiary basis.

While Mr. Cole reveals “An Explanatory Memorandum” was written by a “member” of the MB’s Palestine Committee – Mohamed Akram – he also fails to reveal to the reader that the Palestine Committee is Hamas in the U.S. Nor does he tell the reader that Akram is the number two man on the list of the “Palestine Section in America” discovered by the FBI in the raid in Annandale, Virginia. Furthermore, he does not mention the Memorandum was found among the archives of the Muslim Brotherhood at the home of a senior Hamas/Muslim Brotherhood leader – Ismail Elbarasse.

The Muslim Brotherhood leadership – as well as David Cole and David K. Shipler – continue to dismiss “An Explanatory Memorandum” as just some document found in some garage written by some unknown guy. In fact, the Memorandum was written by a leader in the MB/Hamas Movement, found among the MB archives in North America, and was entered into evidence in the largest terrorism financing and Hamas trial ever successfully prosecuted in U.S. history (US v Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, Dallas 2008).

In UTT’s 3-day “Understanding and Investigating Jihadi Network” course, an entire day is dedicated to walking through facts already in evidence revealing a massive Muslim Brotherhood jihad network threatening the United States. This information does not hinge merely on “An Explanatory Memorandum” yet it does reveal the MB is doing exactly what the Memorandum says it should do in it’s pursuit of overthrowing the U.S. government and imposing Islamic rule. This information includes details from dozens of other Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas documents, the results of the fifteen year (15) FBI investigation culminating in the US v HLF trial, testimony of government officials,declassified FBI documents from related investigations of major Islamic organizations like ISNA (Islamic Society of North America), NAIT (North American Islamic Trust), and others, all of which reveals a coordinated, well-funded, and continuous Islamic Movement in the United States and elsewhere with the stated goal of waging “Civilization Jihad” to destroy Western civilization and replace it with Islamic rule.

In fact, since 2006 when UTT founder John Guandolo created and implemented the first counterterrorism training program in the government specifically detailing the Muslim Brotherhood Movement, Sharia, and the penetration of our system, he has openly and repeatedly stated he will remove any information from his briefing that is not factual and supported by evidence. To date, he has never had to do this.

In fact, Muslim Brotherhood leaders who have attended his public presentations do not say what Guandolo is saying is not true, they tell him they simply do not like that he is saying it.

Most revealing, however, is the fact that this information has been presented to law enforcement officials, military, national security professionals, and senior leaders in America, nearly all of whom have stated the information was unknown to them prior to the course, yet the information details an “insurgency” or Movement in the U.S. which constitutes a major threat that needs to be addressed.

Many of the comments about UTT’s training programs can be found on the UTT website. These comments from law enforcement, military, and security professionals, reveal how powerful this information is. One FBI Agent states “This training should be mandatory for every cop and federal agent in America.”

UTT’s 3-day program is the only one like it in the nation, which is why the Muslim Brotherhood and their collaborators from the progressive left continually try to shut it down. This, in and of itself, is evidence of the power of this program and the truth of the threat.

In April 2011, Director of Central Intelligence (1993-1995) R. James Woolsey, Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency (1988-1991) Lieutenant General Ed Soyster, Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence (2003-2007) Lieutenant General Jerry Boykin, and Inspector General of the Department of Defense (2002-2005) Joseph Schmitz signed a letter supporting John Guandolo and the information he presents on the threat from the Islamic Movement led by the Muslim Brotherhood.

In part, the letter reads:

“Every citizen in this country should hear what (John Guandolo) has to say. The facts he presents speak for themselves and require no commentary. For local and state law enforcement and intelligence officials, this information is critical to identifying, understanding, and thwarting threats in your locale. UTT gives specific details on how to practically implement this information in your area, which directly affects your community and your families…John is our go-to guy concerning these issues. His research is thorough, fact-based and logically presented. He is only biased by reality. We applaud this man of courage and hope you will make the time to hear this presentation.”

In March 2007, UTT Founder John Guandolo and Stephen Coughlin held a one-day seminar at the FBI Academy hosted by the Marine Corps Nation Capital Region Command Antiterrorism/Force Protection (MCNCRC AT/FP) Staff detailing the threat from the Islamic Movement led by the Muslim Brotherhood, Sharai, and the strategy and modus operandi of this enemy. In its official communication to the FBI following this presentation, the Colonel leading MCNCRC wrote, in part:

“The CT presentation provided a solid foundation for the pinpointed actual root of Islamic Fundamentalism that is fueling the Global War on Terrorism. In any battle, military personnel are taught to understand the enemy. This is exactly what this presentation provided: a solid understanding of the ideology the enemy is using. The presentation highlighted that the enemy knows who they are, where they come from, and what they want.

“All of the points discussed were backed up with appropriate research, citing and clearly articulating an understanding of the core issues. The research provided quotes and examples of the extremists supporting the Islamist ideological message. There is hardly a more convincing argument then using one’s own words and actions...As a result of this presentation, MCNCRC AT/FP has received numerous requests from DoD, state, federal, and local organizations and agencies who attended the CT seminar, specifically asking to receive this course of instruction and follow on training from SA Guandolo and Mr. Coughlin, in order to share this critical information with their colleagues and subordinates.

“SA Guandolo and Steve Coughlin have identified a critical information and education gap. They should be commended for their initiative to conduct such an in depth study of the enemy and their courage to share their vast knowledge in an effort to better educate others.

“It is recommended that this program be made more readily available to all levels of government and concerned citizens. It is imperative that we as leaders and as a nation understand and can contextualize this threat to our Nation.”

In fact, those who hear this information, realize the threat from the Islamic Movement is real, is present, and must be dealt with as a part of any National Security effort.

In September 2014, UTT hosted a one day training program in Phoenix, Arizona for 300 law enforcement officers from all over the state. Prior to the course, six (6) Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas organizations in Arizona partnered with their collaborators at the ACLU loudly protested the training program calling it bigoted and hate filled. They wrote a letter to the Maricopa County Attorney calling for the training to be cancelled. One of the signers was Usama Shami, the leader of the Hamas/MB’s Islamic Community Center of Arizona – the home of the two jihadis killed in Garland, Texas several weeks ago who were looking to impose Sharia by shutting down free speech.

Also of note is that the MB/Hamas organizations identified by UTT as threats have supported jihadi operations across the nation as has been previously detailed by UTT.

At the end of this one-day program, only nine people in the audience raised their hands and stated they knew this information prior to the training. Seven of them had been to a prior UTT training and two had been working with the Center for Security Policy. Everyone in the audience raised their hands when asked if the information was critical to protecting citizens in their state.

The reality is that a strategic assault on our free speech by the progressives on the left is now unfolding and David K. Shipler’s book and support from those like David Cole of the Washington Post are simply the leading edge of this next phase.

Americans must boldly continue to speak truth, not back down, and not be silenced. The assault on our free speech is, in the eyes of our enemies, is the key move in this war to silence us so we will go along quietly while the Republic burns.

Federal investigators shut down a massive Hamas-support network in the United States between 2001 and 2008, prosecuting some elements and freezing the assets of others.

But the Investigative Project on Terrorism finds that many of the same functions – fundraising, propaganda and lobbying ­– endure, now carried out by a group called American Muslims for Palestine (AMP). The IPT investigation identified at least five AMP officials and speakers who worked in the previous, defunct network called the “Palestine Committee.” It was created by the Muslim Brotherhood to advance Hamas’ agenda politically and financially in the United States.

Last year, AMP joined a coalition of national Islamist groups in forming the U.S. Council of Muslim Organizations. The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is among the other founding members (for more on that coalition, click here). CAIR and its founders appear in internal Palestine Committee records admitted into evidence during the largest terror financing trial in U.S. history.

Several Palestine Committee entities were created by Mousa Abu Marzook, who remains a top Hamas political leader. One branch, the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF), was convicted in 2008 along with five senior officials, of illegally routing more than $12 million to Hamas. HLF’s role in the Palestine Committee was the chief fundraising arm for Hamas in the United States, prosecutors say.

“The purpose of creating the Holy Land Foundation was as a fundraising arm for Hamas,” said U.S. District Judge Jorge Solis during a sentencing hearing.

A flow chart of other Palestine Committee entities includes the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP) and a Northern Virginia think tank called the United Association for Studies and Research (UASR). IAP served as a propaganda outlet, organizing rallies and publishing magazines with articles supporting Hamas. CAIR was added to a Palestine Committee meeting agenda shortly after its 1994 creation.

UASR published an academic journal and, prosecutors say, was “involved in passing Hamas communiques to the United States-based Muslim Brotherhood community and relaying messages from that community back to Hamas.”

Today, AMP routinely engages in anti-Israeli rhetoric, sponsors conferences that serve as a platform for Israel bashers, and openly approves “resistance” against the “Zionist state.” One AMP official acknowledged the goal is to “to challenge the legitimacy of the State of Israel.”

An April 2014 AMP-sponsored conference in Chicago, for example, hosted Sabri Samirah, the former chairman of IAP, as a speaker. There was little to no talk about how to achieve peaceful coexistence.

“We are ready to sacrifice all we have for Palestine. Long Live Palestine,” Samirah said. “We have a mission here [in the U.S.] also to support the struggle of our people back there in order to achieve a free land in the Muslim world, without dictators and without corruption.”

The U.S. government had earlier deemed Samirah a “security risk” and he was barred from reentering the country for several years following a trip to Jordan in 2003. While in Jordan, he served as a spokesman for the Jordanian Muslim Brotherhood’s political party, the Islamic Action Front. The charges against Samirah were subsequently dropped and he returned to the U.S. last year.

Steven Emerson, Executive Director of the Investigative Project on Terrorism,

Hot off the presses. Rasmieh Odeh, the female Palestinian terrorist who participated in the killing of two teenagers in Jerusalem in 1969 and then immigrated to the US and lived the good life in the US for 20 years by lying on her immigration forms that she was never convicted in Israel of a terrorist act (for which she served 10 years) and which she had confessed to WAS finally convicted today of lying, perjury and formally accused by the Judge of being a terrorist.

But here are my comments on the case and on the scandalous ramifications of the success of the terrorist lobby “ said , Executive Director of the Investigative Project on Terrorism.

Emerson’s organization has been tracking this case for more than 2 years and produced a five part documentary series, “Spinning a Terrorist Into a Victim” (which you can link to on our website and utube) showing how her numerous “respectable” defenders turned truth on its head by spearheading a massive campaign to portray this terrorist killer as a “victim” of a conspiracy by the “Israeli lobby”, “Islamaphobic” prosecutors”, and “anti Palestinian bigots.”

“What was particularly outrageous about this case was the amalgamation of major human rights groups, Islamic groups (all of whom were just invited to the White House CVE Summit, who have been appointed to senior advisory positions by DHS and DOJ, and all of whom have met repeatedly in Chicago with Mayor Rahm Emanuel) such as CAIR, ADC and nearly every other Islamic group in the alphabet that came to her defense and claimed she was innocent, that she was a victim of the “persecution of the Israeli lobby,” that the PFLP (which carried out the bombing in which she participated) was a ‘heroic resistance group,” etc.

And then there was a list of 124 female faculty members from around the country that supported this killer including the infamous NYY Professor Lisa Duggan, an outspoken supporter of BDS.

“Even more galling in the end was how the judge, who first admonished her, succumbed to the political correct pressure of the pro terrorist lobbying groups and claimed in court that that this killer was, in his scurrilous words, now a “reformed” person: “No doubt in my mind she [Odeh] has changed and reformed.” She is engaged in “positive and constructive activities right now.”

“Kudos to the prosecutors who pursued justice for so many years and refused to bow to political pressures from the Holder Justice Department to drop the case. These prosecutors are the real heroes. True American heroes who deserve the gratitude and deep respect of every American citizen.

“But make no mistake, said Emerson: the reason this was a seminal day in history was not because she was convicted but because of the successful influence of the massive terrorist lobby in the United States which has been lobbying for years in claiming she was framed by the “Jewish Lobby.” That so many ‘mainstream Islamic organizations, human rights groups and academic professors came to the defense of a murderer and perpetuated the “big lie” perfected by Goebbels was scurrilously demonstrated today. That these groups– who have defended a confessed terrorist murderer and then claimed she never did it—have been so routinely welcomed as respected guests into the halls of the White House, State Department, DHS, DOJ, FBI, Chicago Mayor’s Office and by the mainstream media especially the New York Times, the Chicago Tribune and the LA Times represents one of the most darkest days in American history. Yes we should rejoice that justice was finally achieved.

“But the legacy of the massive coalition of such allegedly respectable groups lobbying in support of a confessed terrorist killer is something this country needs to confront. And it starts at the White House and it extends to the mainstream media and to local city officials who by virtue of legitimizing these proterrorist lobby groups have blood on their own hands. “

DETROIT – Rasmieh Odeh, a Palestinian woman who conceived of and led a deadly 1969 Jerusalem bombing plot that killed two civilians, has had her citizenship revokedand will serve 18 months in an American prison for naturalization fraud. Prosecutors had asked for her to serve five to seven years. Her defense maintains even her 18-month sentence in prison is “unjust”.

Odeh never would have been allowed into the United States, and never would have been naturalized as an American citizen, had immigration officials known about the 10 years she spent in Israeli prisons for helping bomb a Jerusalem supermarket, killing two Hebrew University students. But Odeh, 67, failed to disclose that history, checking “no” on her immigration and naturalization applications to questions that asked if she had ever been arrested, convicted or imprisoned.

Those false answers allowed her to live an idyllic life in America for 20 years. Her lies ultimately caught up with her, and the prosecutors, to their credit, initiated an investigation and prosecution that resulted in her conviction on one count of naturalization fraud last November.

U.S. District Judge Gershwin A. Drain said Thursday that Odeh’s case was about “lying under oath” but had been “politicized” to make the Palestinian-Israeli conflict the “rallying point to engender sympathy.”

Regular naturalization fraud guidelines, in this case, recommend that Odeh serve 15-21 months in prison, but prosecutors urged Judge Drain to go far beyond those guidelines due to the nature of the crime she hid from authorities. A sentence of five to seven years fits the crime, Assistant U.S. Attorney Jonathan Tukel argued, saying the original guideline range would fail to deter other terrorists who might consider seeking entry into the United States by failing to disclose their terrorist backgrounds.

Judge Drain cited the prosecution’s deterrence argument saying he wanted to “impose a sentence that will make people think twice before lying under oath to enter the country.” He chided Odeh saying, “you don’t have respect for the law.” He added that “people are watching this case” and he wanted to set a precedent that “promotes respect for the law.”

Judge Drain also said that Odeh not only committed perjury in how she filled out the application, claiming she thought it only applied to her time in the U.S., he also pointed out that she testified about her alleged “torture” and Israeli conviction despite repeated instructions by the court not to do so. For these actions, he not only revoked her citizenship, he sentenced her to 18 months in prison – still far below a prison term of five to seven years that the prosecution requested.

Odeh apologized for knowingly disobeying the judge’s instructions during her trial, explaining that the words just “came out on their own”. Yet she continued to speak at length at her sentencing about her “difficult and harsh” childhood growing up under “Israeli occupation.”

She justified her membership in the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, (PFLP), a known terrorist group, as understandable: “As a woman in an occupied territory, everyone struggled against occupation and I was one of them,” she said, adding that it was not her fault if people made her into an “icon.”

“Every time I do something, something happens and takes me to the zero point,” Odeh said, citing her birth in Palestine and refugee experience in Jordan, while denying responsibility for the murders she participated in.

Footage from a 2004 film, “Women in Struggle” and from a 1993 video, entitled, “Tell Your Tale Little Bird” revealed incriminating evidence of Odeh’s role in the Supersol supermarket bombing in 1969. Footage from a 1970 hijacking showed a female PFLP terrorist identifying her group as “Task Force Rasmieh Odeh.”

Defense attorneys did not want Odeh to have to serve any prison time. They emphasized her community activism in Chicago and persisted in attacking the credibility of Odeh’s conviction in Israel.

In their sentencing memorandum, Odeh’s attorneys wrote that the government’s recommendation was a “draconian sentence, for illegitimate political purposes” designed to “curry favor with their American Zionist constituents and obfuscate 67 years of Israeli terrorism.”

Odeh’s principal attorney, Michael Deutsch who has defended Islamic terrorists for years, emphasized Odeh’s “extraordinary” work within the Arab American and larger community in Chicago. Unfortunately, he said, the sentencing guidelines “do not talk about a person’s contributions to society. But here was a woman who came to the country, she had not taken but given of herself to make this a better place for the immigrants who come here.” He cited her age and “physical and psychological conditions” as reasons justifying a more lenient sentence. Odeh has been “punished enough” and “to use the fact that 45 years ago that she may have been involved in resistance activity seems to me to be unfair and unnecessary,” he said.

“Deutsch’s description of [Odeh’s] participation in the killing of two civilians as ‘resistance activity’ is nauseating, revolting, appalling and reflects the same justification invoked by terrorists around the world when they kill innocent civilians”, said Steven Emerson, Executive Director of The Investigative Project on Terrorism.

Odeh is the associate director of the Arab American Action Network in Chicago. Her prosecution sparked a campaign by colleagues and supporters aimed at pressuring the U.S. Attorney to drop the case. Dozens of people traveled from Chicago, where Odeh now lives, to Detroit, to pack the courtroom during the trial and demonstrate in front of the Theodore Levin U.S. Courthouse.

Despite his recognition of Odeh’s repeated flouting of U.S. law, Judge Drain also nodded to the influence of her campaign of supporters.

To the dismay of anti-terrorism experts who have been following the trial, Judge Drain applauded Odeh’s social activism within the Arab American and larger community, stating that Odeh was once a “terrorist”, but “that was a situation decades ago.” He said that today she was a “reformed” person: “No doubt in my mind she [Odeh] has changed and reformed.” She is engaged in “positive and constructive activities right now.”

Even still, Judge Drain pointed out that Odeh’s background did not excuse her involvement in terrorist acts and subsequent lies. “You grew up in a war environment. It’s not a whole lot different from a lot of people I see in some ways,” he said.

NEW YORK – Amid controversy over whether or not Muslim “no-go” zones exist in Europe, Soeren Kern, a senior fellow at the New York-based Gatestone Institute and also at the Madrid-based Strategic Studies Group, contends they are “a well-known fact of life” in many parts of the continent.

Kern asserted the “problem of no-go zones is well documented, but multiculturalists and their politically correct supporters vehemently deny that they exist.”

“Some are now engaged in a concerted campaign to discredit and even silence those who draw attention to the issue,” he said.

As WND reported, Steven Emerson, director of the Investigative Project on Terrorism, ignited the furor when he said in a Fox News interview Jan. 11, “there are actual cities like Birmingham that are totally Muslim, where non-Muslims just simply don’t go in.”

Paris Mayor Anne Hidalgo threatened to sue Fox News, charging its coverage of the issue “insulted” Paris, and the news channel issued an apology. But contrary to how it was widely reported, Fox News didn’t apologize for saying there were “no-go” zones, and supporters of Emerson argued he was guilty only of overstatement, not fabrication.

“I think Steve Emerson’s biggest mistake was to apologize so profusely,” Kern argued. “If Emerson had just said, ‘I made a mistake and what I meant to say was parts of Birmingham, not all of Birmingham,’ that would have been OK. But once you apologize and show the slightest bit of weakness, the attackers attack and try to devour. I think that’s what happened to Steve.”

In an interview with WND, Kern said supporters of multiculturalism typically have derided any news source or politician who dares openly proclaim the existence of “no-go” zones throughout Europe.

He believes the damage done to Emerson by the comment will pass.

“Emerson is a solid researcher, and his work is very well respected,” Kern said. “I think this will blow over; but we’re already entering presidential campaign mode for 2016, and I believe the entire controversy over ‘no-go’ zones in Europe is a completely fake, contrived controversy.

“I think the controversy is really only in the United States, and the French picked up on it,” he said. “If you read the readers comments in the French newspapers on the Fox News controversy, it is overwhelmingly, like nine comments out of 10, that readers agree with what Fox News said originally. Ordinary readers in France know what’s going on, even if the mainstream media on both sides of the Atlantic are trying to cover it up.”

Failed model

Kern believes the “multicultural model in Europe is failing.”

“There has been so much invested in this over the last 30 years, that those people who are promoting this are very afraid this is going to be reversed,” he said.

Kern stressed that uncontrolled immigration of a growing Muslim population is the underlying issue in many European countries.

“In Europe, like in the United States, immigration is literally out of control,” he said. “But the big difference is that in the United States, when you have Latin American immigrants coming across the border, they have a Roman Catholic Western worldview. But in Europe, with mass immigration coming from North Africa and the Middle Eastern countries, it’s a completely different worldview.”

Consequently, he said, a “huge clash of civilizations develops in Europe, and I think that’s why many want to cover this up and discredit anybody who talks about this openly.”

He thinks “the writing is on the wall,” and many more terrorist attacks like the one on Charlie Hebdo in Paris are inevitable, particularly in Europe.

Kern cited the rise of populist politicians such as Marine Le Pen in France, with polls showing that if there were a presidential race in France today there would be a blowback, as “a lot of French people are upset that immigration, security and integration issues have been swept under the carpet too long.”

Given the Islamist terrorist menace, considering the thousands fighting for Islamist fundamentalists like Islamic State, analyzing the separate Muslim enclaves is legitimate.

For over two weeks now, politically correct bullies have been making yet another legitimate topic off-limits.

Anyone who dares suggest that some Muslim-dominated neighborhoods in Europe are hostile to non-Muslims risks mass mockery. I’m not a Europeanist, a sociologist, a criminologist or an urban anthropologist, but I know an intellectual mugging when I see one: Muslim “no-go zones” are becoming conversational no-go zones.

Such thought suppression is all too familiar. In the 1960s, Daniel Patrick Moynihan dared to admit that the black family was in crisis. In the 1980s, Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher and pope John Paul dared to suggest that the Soviet Union might fall. In the 1990s, Dan Quayle dared to question encouraging single parenthood by attacking the television character Murphy Brown’s decision to become an unwed mother. Each time, these truth-telling deviants from the conventional wisdom were called not just wrong, but stupid and racist. Today, the Soviet Union no longer exists, and many acknowledge the growing gap, overall, between kids raised in single-parent homes and traditional homes, black or white.

The pile-on began on January 10, when Steven Emerson appeared on Fox News. Emerson has the annoying habit of anticipating problems most of us prefer to ignore.

Long before 9/11, this award-winning investigative reporter warned about the dangers radical Islamist terrorism posed.

Now, discussing the underlying causes of the Parisian massacres, Emerson described the alienated, marginalized, majority-Muslim and dangerous neighborhoods that breed radicals, as “no-go zones.”

“They’re sort of amorphous, they’re not contiguous necessarily, but they’re sort of safe havens, and they’re places where the governments like France, Britain, Sweden, Germany, they don’t exercise any sovereignty,” Emerson said. Overstating the problem, Emerson added: “And in Britain, it’s not just no-go zones, there are actual cities like Birmingham that are totally Muslim, where non-Muslims just simply don’t go in!” Simultaneously, other Fox commentators, and Rupert Murdoch, discussed “no-go zones” in categorical, occasionally judgmental, ways.

Within 24 hours, Emerson had apologized for using exaggerations such as “totally,” and had made a charitable donation to Birmingham Hospital as an act of good faith.

His efforts were ignored. The New York Times, diminishing more than three decades of investigative journalism, including a prestigious George Polk Award, repeatedly called him “a self-described” terrorism expert. The prime minister of Britain, who should have more pressing concerns, called Emerson an “idiot.”

Suddenly, the artificially high, absolutist standard Emerson quickly repudiated became the baseline: just because there are no areas of total Muslim domination and total French, British, or Belgian, abdication, the “no-go zones” characterization became a “blunder” and a “myth.” Fox News and CNN apologized for broaching such topics.

Meanwhile, the self-described “newspaper of record,” used “self-described” to insult this serious expert. The Times has only used the phrase pejoratively, with “self-described” snipers, pedophiles and slackers. We never see Jane Fonda called a “self-described” fitness expert; Michael Beschloss called a “self-described” presidential historian – a profession that has no formal designation; or Al Sharpton called a “self-described” civil rights activist. The Times stylebook – and that of every serious journalistic enterprise – should ban the phrase in news reports, unless quoting some critic mocking a rival’s credentials.

The backlash has stifled an important discussion. Boston’s “combat zone” has no soldiers. Most red-light districts have no crimson illumination. Similarly, no-go zones are threatening and dangerous, not formally separate and necessarily lethal. Scary, crime-ridden immigrant neighborhoods are not a new phenomenon, nor are they limited to Europe or Europe’s Muslim immigrants.

But normal patterns of urban and suburban dysfunction are superimposed on the sensitive European Islamist issue, and now filtered through a mechanism of denial. The challenges of unemployment, crime and other structural forms of marginalization, mixed with some radical Muslims’ desire for self-segregation, caused the problems demonstrated most dramatically with the riots that began on October 27, 2005 in Clichy-sous-Bois.

Anecdotally, there are certain neighborhoods where, as one retired French immigrant to Israel with close family still in Paris reports, “a non-Muslim would be very uncomfortable,” out of fear of being “hassled and possibly attacked.” My British friends feel it less. The French government apparently has an official list of “sensitive urban zones,” known by the French shorthand, ZUS.

Without degenerating into anti-Muslim bigotry, Europe is not America and many Muslim immigrants to European are not like America’s Irish, Italians, or Jews. America still values the melting pot while Europe prefers the salad bowl.

Some – emphasize some – radical Muslim clerics and their followers reject the multicultural mutual love-in. These Islamist extremists take a salad-dressing approach, emphasizing that just as oil and water don’t mix, neither should Muslims and non-Muslims. European multiculturalists are so tolerant they even tolerate Islamist intolerance.

Given the Islamist terrorist menace, considering the thousands fighting for Islamist fundamentalists like Islamic State, analyzing the separate Muslim enclaves is legitimate, even using the sloppy “no-go zones” shorthand.

Citizens in pluralistic democratic societies are constantly debating the different balance for ethnic and religious group identities amid broader nationalist and humanistic visions. Jews in particular have spent three centuries vacillating between assimilation and integration.

This sorry episode reflects the partisan nature of too much political discourse today. From climate change to no-go zones, where you stand politically often shapes your perception of reality. The question of Islamism’s relationship to Islamist terrorism – obscured by America’s president, among others – stirs worries about other important issues suppressed by the PC thought police.

In the 1990s, the problem of radical Islamist terrorism didn’t disappear even as many ignored Steven Emerson’s warnings. Similarly, the problem of marginalized and radicalized Islamists in these neighborhoods won’t disappear, even if people mock Emerson and others for raising it.
The author is a professor of history at McGill University and a Visiting Professor at the IDC in Herzliya. The author of eight books on American history, his most recent, Moynihan’s Moment: America’s Fight Against Zionism as Racism, won the J.I. Segal award for best non-fiction Jewish book.

A few days after the terrorist attacks in Paris on the offices of Charlie Hebdo and the Hyper Cacher grocery store, terrorism expert Steve Emerson appeared on the Fox News Channel’sJustice with Judge Jeanine hosted by Jeanine Pirro to discuss Islamic extremism in Europe. During his appearance, Emerson spoke about Muslim “no-go zones” throughout Europe where countries like France, Germany, Sweden, and Britain have ceded sovereignty and non-Muslims are not permitted to enter. Emerson also stated that Birmingham, Britain’s second largest city, is “totally Muslim where non-Muslims just simply don’t go.”

Have you heard about the areas of Europe, or perhaps even of the United States, that are run by jihadists and which non-Muslims can’t even enter? Don’t get too worried if you haven’t: They don’t exist.

Criticize Steve Emerson all you want. Emerson may have been wrong in this instance, but he did warn the world months before the September 11, 2001 attacks, “Al Qaeda is … planning new attacks on the US…. [It has] learned, for example, how to destroy large buildings.” No, Steve Emerson is not a complete idiot. Far from it. In exposing threats from Islamic extremists, Emerson has subjected himself to numerous death threats by jihadists and, for the past two decades, has taken extraordinary protective measures in his day-to-day living. I can attest to the heavy security measures deployed when I went to see him speak at a Brookline synagogue more than a decade ago. Emerson’s bravery cannot be called into question, which is more than what I can say for David Cameron.

Besides, if David Cameron considers Steve Emerson to be a complete idiot for talking about the existence of Muslim no-go zones then why, as Robert Spencer has noted, have the New York Times, Newsweek, and New Republic also used the term “no-go zone”?

So something the New York Times noted in 2002 and Newsweek in 2005, and that the New Republicreported was still a problem in January 2015, is now something Fox News has to apologize for discussing?

Actually, the New York Times used the term “no go zone” as recently as September 2014 in anarticle discussing European anti-Semitism.

It may be wrong to say that large parts of Europe are under Muslim control where law enforcement and non-Muslims at large are forbidden from traversing. But only a complete idiot would deny there isn’t a desire among a critical mass of Muslims to impose Sharia law or, at the very minimum, behave in a violent manner towards non-Muslims.

The sign also indicated that in these zones alcohol, gambling, drugs, smoking, porn, prostitution, music and concerts were forbidden. At the time Choudary stated, “We want to run the area as a Sharia-controlled zone and really to put the seeds down for an Islamic Emirate in the long term.”

Muslims consider the honor of the Prophet Muhammad to be dearer to them than that of their parents or even themselves. To defend it is considered to be an obligation upon them. The strict punishment if found guilty of this crime under sharia (Islamic law) is capital punishment implementable by an Islamic State. This is because the Messenger Muhammad said, “Whoever insults a Prophet kill him.”

However, because the honor of the Prophet is something which all Muslims want to defend, many will take the law into their own hands, as we often see.

Ultimately, I want to see every single woman in this country covered from head to toe. I want to the see the hand of the thief cut. I want to see adulterers stoned to death. I want to see Sharia law in Europe. And I want to see it in America as well. I believe our patrols are a means to an end.

In view of Choudary and Ramaysah’s aims and objectives in conjunction with Choudary’s praise of the Charlie Hebdo attacks, he and those who wish to impose Sharia law in Britain and elsewhere in Europe must be taken every bit as seriously as the people who perpetrated theCharlie Hebdo attacks.

It is true that these posters Choudary disseminated were not legally sanctioned and Scotland Yard worked with local councils to take them down. Nevertheless, this hasn’t prevented self-appointed Muslim Patrols from trying to enforce Sharia law on the streets of London. Similar patrols have also surfaced in Germany.

This problem isn’t confined to Britain. Consider what Pakistani-born Canadian Muslim journalist Natasha Fatah wrote in December 2010 following a trip to Malmo, Sweden, with her husband:

Malmo was supposed to be a symbol of Sweden’s multiculturalism. But it is in danger of turning into an Islamist ghetto, with a hard core of those who favour an Islamic state.

Fatah went on to write that synagogues have been vandalized and Jews have been publicly accosted on the streets, but that local authorities have done little to stop the problem and as a result Jews are leaving Sweden. So here is a Muslim who recognizes the danger of turning Sweden into an Islamic state. Would David Cameron call her a complete idiot too?

So where does this leave the term “no-go zone”? The term was coined by Daniel Pipes back in 2006. But by 2013, following visits to Muslim neighborhoods throughout Europe, Pipesreassessed his view:

I found that those areas “are not full-fledged no-go zones” — meaning places where the government had lost control of territory. No warlords dominate; sharia is not the law of the land. I expressed regret back then for having used the term no-go zones.

So how does Pipes think these enclaves should now be described? He suggests “semi-autonomous sectors.” Honestly, it doesn’t matter what term Pipes uses to describe Muslims who seek to impose Sharia on the rest of the population. Islamists and their left-wing apologists in the media believe Islam is beyond criticism. They want Islam to be a no-go subject.

Paris Mayor Anne Hidalgo said Monday that the city will be suing Fox News over commentator Steve Emerson’s discussion of “no-go zones” in the city. Emerson appeared on Glenn Beck’s radio program Wednesday to discuss why he spoke about “no-go zones,” and said some have reacted to his comments as though he was “guilty of murder.”

“Governments don’t recognize that term,” Emerson began. “It’s an informal reference in which policemen or firemen or government agencies won’t go in to areas where there are dense Muslim concentrations for fear of their lives. And it’s been reported on since 2002 in of all places, the New York Times.”

Though Hidalgo said Emerson’s comments “insulted” the image of Paris, Beck and his co-hosts said Emerson’s description was how they understood the term. They never thought it was an “official edict.”

But Emerson was quick to note that he did make a false statement when he referred to Birmingham, England as “totally Muslim where non-Muslims just simply don’t go.”

“I made a total error,” he said. “I was totally wrong. Within hours of making that statement, I issued a declarative, unmitigated, unreserved, unambiguous apology.”

When Beck asked how Emerson’s statements on Fox News became an international controversy, Emerson said he believes a “hatred of Fox” and a hatred of his work in exposing radical Islam “combined to spiral out of control to the point where it seems like I was guilty of murder.”

Comments by Steven Emerson on Fox News have prompted a heated debate over whether predominantly Muslim “no-go” zones exist in Europe. On Jan. 11, Emerson said they “exist throughout Europe … they’re places where the governments like France, Britain, Sweden, Germany don’t exercise any sovereignty. .. you basically have zones where Shariah courts were set up, where Muslim density is very intense, where the police don’t go in, and where it’s basically a separate country almost, a country within a country.”

Although Emerson, whom I admire for his moral courage and investigative skills, immediately apologized for his “terrible error” of saying that cities like Birmingham, England, “are totally Muslim where non-Muslims just simply don’t go,” he did not address the larger question of whether no-go zones, in fact, do “exist throughout Europe” and are places where governments “don’t exercise any sovereignty.”

Is he right about this?

In a 2006 weblog entry, I called Muslim enclaves in Europe no-go zones as a non-euphemistic equivalent for the French phrase Zones Urbaines Sensibles, or Sensitive Urban Zones. No-go zones subsequently became standard in English to describe Muslim-majority areas in West Europe.

After spending time in the banlieues (suburbs) of Paris in January 2013, as well as in their counterparts in Athens, Berlin, Brussels, Copenhagen, Malmö, and Stockholm, however, I have had second thoughts. I found that those areas “are not full-fledged no-go zones” — meaning places where the government had lost control of territory. No war lords dominate; Shari’a is not the law of the land. I expressed regret back then for having used the term no-go zones.

A travel agency in Berlin in October 2010.

So, what are these places? A unique and as-yet un-named mix.

On the one hand, West European states can intervene anywhere and at any time in their sovereign territory. As the shoot-out in Verviers and the subsequent raids in Belgium suggest, their overwhelming advantage in force – including military, intelligence, and police – means they have not ceded control.

After a terrorist attack in May 2014, police were out in force in the Jewish area of Antwerp, Belgium.

On the other hand, governments often choose not to impose their will on Muslim-majority areas, allowing them considerable autonomy, including in some cases the Shariah courts that Emerson mentioned. Alcohol and pork are effectively banned in these districts, polygamy and burqas commonplace, police enter only warily and in force, and Muslims get away with offences illegal for the rest of population.

The Rotherham, England, child sex scandal offers a powerful example. An official inquiry found that for sixteen years, 1997-2013, a ring of Muslim men sexually exploited – through abduction, rape, gang rape, trafficking, prostitution, torture – at least 1,400 non-Muslim girls as young as 11. The police received voluminous complaints from the girls’ parents but did nothing; they could have acted, but chose not to.

According to the inquiry, “the Police gave no priority to CSE [child sexual exploitation], regarding many child victims with contempt and failing to act on their abuse as a crime.” Even more alarming, in some cases, “fathers tracked down their daughters and tried to remove them from houses where they were being abused, only to be arrested themselves when police were called to the scene.” Worse, the girls “were arrested for offences such as breach of the peace or being drunk and disorderly, with no action taken against the perpetrators of rape and sexual assault against children.”

Another example, also British, was the so-called Operation Trojan Horse that flourished from 2007 until 2014, in which (again, according to an official inquiry), a group of school functionaries developed “a strategy to take over a number of schools in Birmingham and run them on strict Islamic principles.”

What does one call Rotherham and Birmingham? They are not no-go zones, neither in terms of geography or sovereignty. This is where we – Emerson, others (such as Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal), and I stumbled. The English language lacks a readily-available term for this. And for good reason: I know of no historical parallel, in which a majority population accepts the customs and even the criminality of a poorer and weaker immigrant community. The world has never seen anything comparable to the contemporary West’s blend of achievement, timidity, and guilt, of hugely superior power matched by a deep reluctance to use it.

Instead of no-go zones, I propose semi-autonomous sectors, a term that emphasizes their indistinct and non-geographic nature – thus permitting a more accurate discussion of what is, arguably, West Europe’s most acute problem.

In the wake of the Fox News apology for a guest expert’s on-air claims regarding Muslim “no-go zones” in Europe, an international clamor has ensued with condemnation of Fox, claims that Muslim immigrants really do want to assimilate, and a threat by the mayor of Paris to sue the cable network for “insulting” the great city.

There’s only one problem: Europe is full of Muslim “no-go” zones, which have been documented, lamented, reported on and openly discussed for years.

In fact, the governments of France and other European nations have identified specific enclaves, where Muslim immigrants have chosen not to assimilate, as areas in which law enforcement has lost some degree of control.

The French zones, which have specific street demarcations, were first identified by the government in 1996. An estimate that is now 10 years old found 5 million people living in the zones, Pipes noted.

Nevertheless, Paris Mayor Anne Hidalgo declared Tuesday in a CNN interview the city will sue Fox News after the network’s coverage “insulted” them.

“When we’re insulted, and when we’ve had an image, then I think we’ll have to sue, I think we’ll have to go to court, in order to have these words removed,” Hidalgo said. “The image of Paris has been prejudiced, and the honor of Paris has been prejudiced.”

On Saturday, “Fox Report” host Julie Banderas told viewers that in the previous week, “We have made some regrettable errors on air regarding the Muslim population in Europe, particularly with regard to England and France.”

“To be clear, there is no formal designation of these zones in either country … and no credible information to support the assertion that there are specific areas in these countries that exclude individuals based solely on their religion,” Banderas said. “There are certainly areas of high crime in Europe as there are in the United States and other countries – where police and visitors enter with caution. We deeply regret the errors and apologize to any and all who may have taken offense including the people of France and England.”

The New York Times declared in a headline: “Fox News Apologizes for False Claims of Muslim-Only Areas in England and France” while the Atlanta Journal-Constitution blared, “Fox News admits ‘no-go zones’ are fantasy.”

Not so fast, says Robert Spencer, a long-time monitor of the conflict between Islam and Western civilization as editor of Jihad Watch.

He wrote in a Front Page Magazine column that the “only problem with all the cork popping around Fox’s apology was that there is a problem with Muslim areas in Europe – and the Fox apology didn’t go so far as to say there wasn’t.”

Spencer acknowledged inaccurate statements were made by Steven Emerson, director of the Investigative Project on Terrorism. In a Fox News interview Jan. 11, Emerson said “there are actual cities like Birmingham that are totally Muslim, where non-Muslims just simply don’t go in.”

“That is false, and Emerson has acknowledged that and apologized,” Spencer wrote.

But Emerson was not guilty of fabrication, Spencer quickly asserted, only of overstatement.

A zone in nearly every city

Pipes, who was one of the first to use the term “no-go zone” in reference to Muslims in Europe, noted in 2006 that France’s Sensitive Urban Zones ranged from two zones in the medieval town of Carcassonne to 12 in the heavily Muslim city of Marseilles, with hardly a town in the country lacking one.

Since 2007, Pipes has visited largely Muslim areas of Paris, Copenhagen, Malmö, Stockholm, Berlin and Athens to find out for himself what is happening. He explained that for “a visiting American, these areas are very mild, even dull.”

“We who know the Bronx and Detroit expect urban hell in Europe too, but there things look fine. The immigrant areas are hardly beautiful, but buildings are intact, greenery abounds, and order prevails,” Pipes said.

“These are not full-fledged no-go zones,” he explained, “but, as the French nomenclature accurately indicates, ‘sensitive urban zones.’ In normal times, they are unthreatening, routine places. But they do unpredictably erupt, with car burnings, attacks on representatives of the state (including police), and riots.”

Britain’s chief inspector of constabulary, Tom Winsor, told the Times of London in an interview that parts of the U.K. are becoming no-go areas for police because minority communities are operating their own justice systems.

“There are some communities born under other skies who will not involve the police at all. I am reluctant to name the communities in question, but there are communities from other cultures who would prefer to police themselves,” said Winsor, who is responsible for the inspection of police forces in England and Wales.

“There are cities in the Midlands where the police never go because they are never called. They never hear of any trouble because the community deals with that on its own.”

The Leftist media and Islamic supremacist groups have been doing a victory dance ever since Saturday night, when Fox News issued an apology for statements made on the air by terror expert Steve Emerson and others about Muslim no-go zones in Britain and France. However, the apology doesn’t say what it has widely reported as saying – and there is considerable evidence that Muslim areas in both countries are a growing law enforcement and societal problem.

Fox Report host Julie Banderas stated:

Over the course of this last week we have made some regrettable errors on air regarding the Muslim population in Europe, particularly with regard to England and France. Now, this applies especially to discussions of so-called ‘no-go zones,’ areas where non-Muslims allegedly aren’t allowed in and police supposedly won’t go.

To be clear, there is no formal designation of these zones in either country and no credible information to support the assertion there are specific areas in these countries that exclude individuals based solely on their religion.

There are certainly areas of high crime in Europe as there are in the United States and other countries — where police and visitors enter with caution. We deeply regret the errors and apologize to any and all who may have taken offense, including the people of France and England.

The only problem with all the cork popping around Fox’s apology was that there is a problem with Muslim areas in Europe – and the Fox apology didn’t go so far as to say there wasn’t. To be sure, the controversy began with undeniably inaccurate statements from Emerson. He said on Fox on January 11 that “there are actual cities like Birmingham that are totally Muslim, where non-Muslims just simply don’t go in.” That is false, and Emerson has acknowledged that and apologized.

However, Emerson was not guilty of fabrication, just of overstatement. Some of the comments on a piece in the UK’s Daily Mail about his gaffe and British Prime Minister David Cameron’s reaction to it (he called Emerson a “complete idiot”) insisted that Emerson was at least partially right: “Just shows cameron doesn’t even know what is happening in this country , as the news presenter is totally correct , its a no go zone .” “There ARE some parts of Birmingham where you darent or shouldn’t go !” “Is he far off the truth? Maybe it’s not true for Birmingham as a whole but there are certain areas where it is true. Certainly it is true of certain other Towns in the UK. Bradford, Leicester, Luton spring to mind.”

Fox’s apology stated that,

“To be clear, there is no formal designation of these zones in either country and no credible information to support the assertion there are specific areas in these countries that exclude individuals based solely on their religion.”

That says as much as it says, and no more. It says that neither the British nor the French government has designated any areas to be no-go zones where non-Muslims aren’t allowed in, and that there is no evidence that non-Muslims are not allowed into any areas in either country.

But this carefully worded statement does not actually say that there aren’t areas in Britain or France in which non-Muslims are menaced for not adhering to Islamic law. That is a real and abundantly documented problem. Emerson pointed to it when he said:

While Emerson’s implication that this was an ongoing phenomenon was false, there were indeed such Sharia enforcers in London between 2011 and 2013. In July 2011, the UK’s Daily Mail reported:

“Islamic extremists have launched a poster campaign across the UK proclaiming areas where Sharia law enforcement zones have been set up. Communities have been bombarded with the posters, which read: ‘You are entering a Sharia-controlled zone – Islamic rules enforced.’”

In December 2013, members of one of these self-styled “Muslim patrols” were imprisoned; according to the Guardian, in London they

“harassed people, berating them with shouts of ‘this is a Muslim area!’ They forced men to dump their alcoholic drinks, instructed women on the appropriate way to dress, and yelled insults at those they perceived to be gay.”

They didn’t just berate people; as Emerson said, they beat them. In YouTube videos, they threatened to do so, saying: “We are coming to implement Islam upon your own necks.” In June 2013, Muslims attacked an American who was drinking on the street, grabbing the bottle out of his hands and smashing him in the eye with it, causing permanent injury. In August 2013, according to the Daily Mail, “two brothers in law who went on a sponsored walk wearing comedy mankinis had to be picked up by police – after they were pelted with stones and eggs by residents who told them ‘this is a Muslim area’ and demanded they leave.”

A “Muslim area” – maybe even a “no-go zone.” Not in the sense that non-Muslims are barred from entering, but in that, if they do enter, they have to adhere to Sharia restrictions.

The Fox apology is all the more curious in light of the fact that others, even on the Left, have noticed the no-go zones in France before some Fox commentators began talking about them in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo attacks. David Ignatius wrote in the New York Times in April 2002:

“Arab gangs regularly vandalize synagogues here, the North African suburbs have become no-go zones at night, and the French continue to shrug their shoulders.”

“according to research conducted by the government’s domestic intelligence network, the Renseignements Generaux, French police would not venture without major reinforcements into some 150 ‘no-go zones’ around the country–and that was before the recent wave of riots began on Oct. 27.”

The police wouldn’t venture into these areas without major reinforcements in 2005. Does anyone really think that the situation has improved in the intervening years?

And the day after the Charlie Hebdo massacre set off Fox’s discussions of no-go zones in France, the reliably Leftist New Republic wrote:

So something the New York Times noted in 2002 and Newsweek in 2005, and that the New Republic reported was still a problem in January 2015, is now something that Fox News has to apologize for discussing?

Clearly there is a problem in these areas. Two of the three Charlie Hebdo murderers were born and raised in France. Where did they get their ideas about killing blasphemers? Not from French schools. They learned them in the Muslim areas where they were born and raised. What’s more, France leads the West in the number of Muslims who have traveled from there to wage jihad for the Islamic State, with well over a thousand Muslims leaving France to join the caliphate. Where did they get their understanding of Islam?

In objecting to Fox’s coverage, the French government objected to claims that these areas were outside their control and subject to Sharia, but it is obvious that whatever control they do have over these areas is not enough to prevent the indoctrination of all too many young Muslims into the jihad ideology.

There needs to be a balanced, honest public discussion of these Muslim areas in Britain and France. The controversy over what has been said on Fox in recent weeks only obscures the need for that discussion. And Fox’s apology, however carefully worded, only plays into the hands of Leftists and Islamic supremacists who have a vested interest in rendering people ignorant and complacent about the reality of what is going on in these areas.

So now would be a good time for Fox to apologize for its apology – and to devote extended attention to the Muslim areas of Britain and France, and shed light on what is really going on in them. That would be to provide a service far greater than the usual surface-scratching of television news.

As USA Today reports, “On Monday, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, a potential candidate for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination, will give a speech in London addressing what has been a disputed claim that Muslim immigrants have created “no-go zones” in Europe where non-Muslims are not welcome.”

This claim is being denied by the governments of England and France and declared to be ludicrous at best and amusing in the worst-case scenario. In fact, when hearing of a similar claim by terror analyst Steve Emerson on Fox News, British Prime Minister David Cameron responded: “When I heard this frankly, I choked on my porridge and I thought it must be April Fools Day. This guy is clearly a complete idiot.”

David Cameron may “choke on his porridge,” bacon, become disoriented about the time of year, or resort to name-calling, but I commend Governor Jindal for pressing on.

There is a problem and “porridge choking” won’t solve the problem that a disturbing number of European youth are becoming either radicalized or disenfranchised enough to consider fighting against their own country and their own way of life.

The prevailing method of ignoring the problem, or any problem that doesn’t conform to a specified manner of thinking, and shutting down dissent by name-calling has never and will never work.

France was not so vehement in their denial of the existence of these “no-go” zones. Rather they referred to the areas as 751 “sensitive urban zones” where you might find disadvantaged youths who appear to be unhappy with their position in society.

The French claim these areas have low home ownership rates, low income and low education levels. I’ve traveled extensively through Europe and many of my relatives and friends are residents of these types of areas in Germany, France and England.

USA Today says “former State Department official John Bolton’s Gatestone Foundation states “the “no-go” areas are the by-product of decades of multicultural policies that have encouraged Muslim immigrants to create parallel societies and remain segregated rather than become integrated into their European host nations.”

So what happens when immigrants refuse to assimilate into their host society and instead set up parallel societies that reflect their own culture, mores and values of their native countries? Well, you get the problem we’re witnessing in Europe.

Longtime terrorism expert (and former CNN investigative correspondent) Steve Emerson has been tortured in the New York Times and other major media outletsafter identifying a large city in the UK (Birmingham) as “totally Muslim, where non-Muslims just simply don’t go.” He not only issued an apology to every resident of Birmingham for this misstatement on Fox News, he announced a donation to a children’s hospital in the city. Commentators and journalists make errors, but few ever apologize for them. Indeed, the Times story smearing Emerson as a “self-described” terrorism expert (the piece was co-written by Robert Mackey, who has a distinguished record of anti-Israel bias) had three errors in it that the paper had to correct.

Now the paper of record should step forward and issue a fourth correction. When you call someone “self-described,” what you are really doing is calling him or her a kook. Tell that to all the government officials (including two former FBI counterterrorism officials and a former counterterrorism chief of the NSC) who have praised Emerson for his expertise on the subject of terrorism.

In fact, if its reporters were being honest, the Times would note that the contributions Emerson has made to our knowledge about terrorism since he founded the Investigative Project on Terrorism in 1995 are enormous. Prior to IPT, he won the George Polk award—one of the highest honors in journalism—for a documentary titled “Jihad in America: The Grand Deception.” Two of his books—one on the bombing of Pan Am 103—garnered praise in reviews in the Times itself. And the late Abe Rosenthal, the legendary managing editor of the Times, once noted about Emerson: “His investigative work on radical Islamic fundamentalism is absolutely critical to this nation’s national security. There is no one else who has exhibited the same expertise, courage and determination to tackle this vital issue.” (Rosenthal, with his famous temper, must be spinning in his grave over the “self-described” smear that the paper’s current editors published about Emerson.)

However, Emerson has lambasted the Times on many, many occasions when the newspaper failed its readers on the topic of terrorism. And going after the Times too vigorously can exact a price. Thus, it’s not unreasonable to wonder if some of the paper’s writers and editors were salivating at this opportunity to waterboard him and Fox at the same time.

Let’s put aside the fact that there are definitely some parts of Birmingham that can be dangerous places for non-Muslims to go at night — something the Times may or may not choose to inform its readers about. The question I have is why CNN international correspondent Jim Clancy hasn’t received “The Emerson Treatment” from the Times and other major outlets — following a bizarre Twitter exchange last week, in which he accused Israel and Zionist propaganda of being partially responsible for the Paris attacks. He also tweeted, “The [Hebdo] cartoons NEVER mocked the prophet. They mocked how the COWARDS tried to distort his word.” In yet another tweet, he referred to someone as a “cripple,” prompting a disability inclusion organization to call on CNN to apologize for the disparaging remark.

Today, in the wake of his Twitter meltdown, Clancy announced that he’s leaving CNN after 34 years of service – no reason given, and with no apologies to anybody. So far, the only media outlets that have reported on his departure: Jewish publications; Rush Limbaugh; Mediaite and the like. Knock knock, New York Times, anybody home?

Over the last few days, the mainstream media has been howling with glee over Steve Emerson’s gaffe on Fox News. Emerson said that in Britain, “there are actual cities like Birmingham that are totally Muslim, where non-Muslims just simply don’t go in,” and “in parts of London, there are actually Muslim religious police that actually beat and actually wound, seriously, anyone who doesn’t dress according to Muslim, religious Muslim attire.” Birmingham is not actually totally Muslim, and so Emerson apologized: “There was no excuse for making this mistake, and I owe an apology to every resident of Birmingham. I am not going to make any excuses. I made an inexcusable error. And I am obligated to openly acknowledge that mistake. I wish to apologize for all residents of that great city of Birmingham.”

The Leftist media and its Islamic supremacist allies are trying to use this to get all foes of jihad terror off the air: numerous mainstream media outlets used the incident to impugn the reliability not only of Emerson, but of all critics of terror and of Fox News as a whole. But as you might expect, their outrage and ridicule are selective. Emerson overstated his case, but he was talking about a problem that is real. “Muslim Patrols” that violently enforced Sharia in London were jailed late in 2013, and there are no-go areas for non-Muslims in Birmingham and elsewhere in Britain: commenters on a Daily Mail piece about Emerson’s gaffe stated: “Just shows Cameron doesn’t even know what is happening in this country , as the news presenter is totally correct , its a no go zone .” “Include parts of London in that too. Seen first hand.” “There ARE some parts of Birmingham where you darent or shouldn’t go !” “Is he far off the truth? Maybe it’s not true for Birmingham as a whole but there are certain areas where it is true. Certainly it is true of certain other Towns in the UK. Bradford, Leicester, Luton spring to mind.”

Aslan has also claimed that the Biblical story of Noah was barely four verses long — which he then corrected to forty, but that was wrong again, as it is 89 verses long. Aslan claimed that the “founding philosophy of the Jesuits” was “the preferential option for the poor,” but the Jesuits were founded in 1534, and according to the California Catholic Conference, “the popular term ‘preferential option for the poor’ is relatively new. Its first use in a Church document is in 1968.” He invoked Pope Pius XI as an example of how “historically, Fascist ideology did infect corners of the Catholic world,” apparently ignorant of the fact that Pius XI issued the anti-fascist encyclical Mit Brennender Sorge.

But to the mainstream media, Reza Aslan is a “renowned scholar,” while Steve Emerson, who has been on the front lines exposing the activities of jihad terrorists and Islamic supremacists for over twenty years, is a “self-proclaimed expert.” All you have to do is mouth the accepted establishment opinions, kids, and you, too, can be a renowned scholar!

Terrorism expert Steve Emerson has come under fire for daring to warn about the continuing Islamist radicalization of Birmingham and the greater United Kingdom.

Emerson has spent a lifetime warning about the threats to the West posed by Islamic radicals. His organization, The Investigative Project On Terrorism, has been relied heavily upon by law enforcement and federal officials in helping to catch those who seek to do us harm.

British PM David Cameron has gone as far as to call Emerson a “complete idiot” for his remarks during a Fox News appearance, in which he stated that Birmingham had become“totally Muslim.” “When I heard this, frankly, I choked on my porridge and I thought it must be April Fools day,” said Cameron.

Emerson has apologized for his remarks, saying that he made an “inexcusable error” in overstating particular claims such as that religious police beat “anyone who doesn’t dress” in Islamic garb.

However, while many in the mainstream media are forbidden from reporting on such issues, for fear of being labeled an “Islamophobe” or “racist,” Breitbart London has reported extensively on the continuing Islamic radicalization of Birmingham.

Birmingham, where 22 percent of its population follows Islam, represents almost five times higher than the 4.8 percent national average. Additionally, a 2011 census found that Birmingham had more Muslims enrolled in schools than Christians.

In April, Breitbart London reported that a whopping twenty-five institutions across Birmingham were subject to a “Trojan Horse” plot in which jihadists attempted to install Islamic radicals as the school’s head teachers.

A report released in June by the U.K. Education office (Ofsted) found that five state schools in Birmingham had attempted to impose an Islamic, “narrow faith-based ideology.” Ofsted found that Islamic schools countrywide were promoting stoning, lashing, and loving “death more than life.”

In July, a counterterrorism official uncovered a “sustained and coordinated agenda to impose upon children in a number of Birmingham schools the segregationist attitudes and practices of a hardline and politicised strain of Sunni Islam,” reported the Guardian.

While Cameron has been “choking on his porridge,” Birmingham and the entire U.K. has continued its slide towards radicalization. On Cameron’s watch, those who have carried out the barbaric act of Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) have never been prosecuted; Islamic radicals are free to stay, while freedom fighters are denied entry; and the proliferation of Sharia courts and push for full Sharia law continues.

Additionally, throughout the United Kingdom and the whole of Europe, there exist hundreds of self-ruling Sharia enclaves where the “writ of the state, the sovereignty of the nation does not apply,” Breitbart’s Sebastian Gorka told Fox News on Saturday.

They shouted in Arabic “Allahu Akbar” (Allah is Greatest) and “We are avenging the Prophet Mohammed” as they sprayed their victims with hundreds of bullets from their semi-automatic weapons.

Their “victims” were the top editorial cartoonists of the satirical Charlie Hebdo magazine, who had dared to practice their right of free speech. Their offense? Publishing cartoons deemed “offensive” by Muslim leaders around the world. The perpetrators? Islamic terrorists.

Yet in the immediate hours after the murders in Paris, the response from western leaders was scurrilously predictable in their refusal to describe the attack as an “Islamic terrorist attack.”

Indeed, the responses from our own president, French President Hollande and British Prime Minster David Cameron all spouted the same empty pabulum in asserting that the Paris attack had nothing to do with Islam or any religion for that matter. But the hollow comments coming from our own leaders are steeped in the stench of appeasement and cowardice.

The first comments came from Josh Earnest, the White House spokesman, who refused to even call the massacre an act of terrorism, but made sure to add the now typical non-sequitor which now routinely follows Islamic terrorist attacks, that “Islam is a religion of peace” and therefore nobody should associate the “extremists” in Paris with Islam.

Then President Obama issued his own statement, but in keeping with his administration’s 6 year old prohibition on using the term “Islamic terrorism,” he simply referred to the attack as “terrorism” — a vanilla term conspicuously devoid of any descriptive term explaining the motivation behind the attack. Thus, to the proverbial Martian it literally could have been eco-terrorism, white supremacist terrorism, or narco-terrorism. (But admittedly, calling this an act of “terrorism” was a step up from the classification of Major Nidal Hassan’s similar massacre at Fort Hood as “workplace violence.”)

Then in live comments delivered later, both President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry gave blustery defenses of the U.S. determination to protect the right of free speech and vowed that neither the French nor anyone in the West would be cowed into silence by terrorism.

Secretary Kerry said as follows:

“Today, tomorrow, in Paris, in France, or across the world, the freedom of expression that this magazine, no matter what your feelings were about it, the freedom of expression that it represented is not able to be killed by this kind of act of terror.” Nice words of bravado.

I hate to disabuse our secretary of state, but indeed “freedom of expression” has indeed already been killed by acts of Islamic terrorism.

Notwithstanding the secretary’s nice words of bravado today, the views in 2012 of the Obama administration on the very same French magazine were markedly differently “We are aware that a French magazine published cartoons featuring a figure resembling the prophet Muhammad, and obviously we have questions about the judgment of publishing something like this,” said Jay Carney, the White House spokesman. “We know these images will be deeply offensive to many and have the potential to be inflammatory.”

The president himself, before the United Nations, revealed his own appeasement of Islamic terrorists and hoodlums when he declared in September 2012:

“The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”

Where was his moral insistence that we would never give into terrorists who would employ violence to intimidate us in suppressing our right to free speech?

Just imagine if, amidst the recent North Korean campaign to intimidate Sony into not showing its film that offended North Korea, the president had stated, “The future must not belong to those who slander Kim Jong-un.”

The issue we face is not, as Islamist groups falsely claim in the United States — ironically the very ones invited to the White House, Homeland Security, Department of Justice, and State Department — that using the term Islamic terrorism connotes a generalization that all Muslims are terrorists any more than using the term “Hispanic drug cartels” means that all Hispanics are druggies or that the term “Italian mafia” means that all Italians are mobsters or that the term “German Nazis” mean that all Germans were Nazis.

The term Islamic terrorism means just that: terrorist attacks with an Islamic motivation — whether they attempts to silence critics of Islam, impose Sharia, punish Western “crusaders,” commit genocide of non-Muslims, establish Islamic supremacy (or Caliphate), or destroy any non Muslim peoples (e.g. the Jews and Christians) that are “occupying Muslim lands.”

And so in refusing to use the term Islamic terrorism, the administration and their multiculturalist western leaders go along with the patently false charade that Islamic terrorism simply does not exist.

This has profound national security implications not only for non-Muslims, but for Muslim victims of Islamic terrorism. If you cannot name your enemy, how can you expect to defeat him?

In buying into the notion that uttering the term “radical Islam” is somehow racist, the real scandal here is that our administration and other Western leaders in general are in fact taking a page out of the playbook written by Muslim Brotherhood front groups like the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC).

Those groups, in turn, are ideological derivatives in the West of the Muslim Brotherhood which itself the parent of all Islamic Sunni terrorist groups—from Al Shabab to ISIS to Al Qaeada to Hamas. And in the West, those Muslim Brotherhood front groups have managed to perpetuate one of the biggest and most dangerous national security frauds of the past 30 years: that use of the term Islamic terrorism is tantamount to a racist generalization that all Muslims are terrorist. And that any criticism of Islam means you are an Islamophobe.

Four weeks ago, the United Arab Emirates, a distinctly observant Muslim country, had the courage to designate the Muslim Brotherhood and 83 other Islamist groups including CAIR in the U.S. as Islamic terrorist groups.

And our reaction? To our everlasting shame, the Obama administration came to the defense of CAIR, which has been described as a front for Hamas by the FBI and was designated an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terrorist money laundering trial in U.S. history that resulted in the closure of the Holy Land Foundation and the conviction of its leaders for laundering money to Hamas.

Phrasing the problem of “violent extremism,” as the Obama administration has done repeatedly, of being a problem exclusively of only Al Qaeda and now ISIS, is intellectually spurious and truly dangerous to our national security.

Most recently, in describing ISIS, the Obama administration has categorically defined the group as having “nothing to do with Islam.”

It’s time for our leaders to stop this nonsense. Islamic terrorism and extremism are brutal realities that have killed tens of thousands of people, mostly Muslims.

Islamic extremism cannot be confined to groups we don’t like. Islamic extremism is now a movement, just like fascism and communism; it spans a spectrum from Hamas to Al Shabab to the Muslim Brotherhood. And to ignore the common denominator in the motivation behind 75% of the world’s annual terrorist attacks carried out by Islamic terrorists is a sure guarantee that Wednesday’s attacks will be repeated over and over again.